The emergency fund for low income familes facing emergencies is to be stopped

Government to stop funding for low-income families facing emergencies
Department for Work and Pensions to cut £180m support; Children's Society alarmed at 'blow to critical safety net'

A £180m-a-year hardship fund providing emergency help for low-income families who suffer sudden financial crisis as a result of domestic violence, ill-health or natural disaster such as flooding is to be scrapped, it has emerged.

Technical documents released just before Christmas suggest the Department for Work and Pensions plans to cut its cash allocation to local authority welfare assistance schemes in 15 months' time.

Charities warned this would lead to a postcode lottery in local welfare help and trigger a rise in the number of people becoming dependent on loan sharks or charitable support, such as food banks.

Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children's Society, said the removal of government funding for local crisis schemes was alarming. "This is yet another blow to what was once a critical safety net for families facing such unpredictable emergencies and disasters as flooding, or simply running out of money to buy food for their children or feed the electricity meter.

"We urgently need a clear commitment from government to provide local authorities with sustainable funding to support families facing an unexpected financial crisis. Without this, many more families will be forced to turn to food banks, or to use loan sharks or high-cost money lenders."

Local welfare assistance schemes were set up in 152 local authorities in England in April, after the old, nationally administered social fund was "localised" as part of the Welfare Reform Act.

The schemes are comprised of two elements – crisis support, which is designed to help penniless people with vital short-term expenses such as food or clothes; and community care grants, which would help people in severe crisis obtain basic living essentials such as beds and cooking equipment.

The ending of the £180m funding stream in April 2015 is likely to lead to a sporadic provision of crisis help because some councils, which have no statutory duty to provide local welfare, might decide to close their schemes altogether.

A DWP spokeswoman confirmed that it would no longer fund the schemes after 2014-15, saying that future arrangements were a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

Although the DWP had always made it clear there were no guarantees of funding after 2014-15, it had promised to review the progress of the schemes before taking a decision on future funding.

It confirmed to the Guardian on Friday that it would carry out the planned progress review of local schemes in the next few months, but it would be up to councils and the DCLG to act on its findings.

The DWP has always claimed the fund was ineffectively targeted, and that councils are best placed to judge how much to allocate to local crisis welfare provision.

A spokeswoman for the DCLG said that from 2015 local welfare is to be funded from local authority general funds.

Though some councils will continue to fund some kind of local crisis fund, many will decide they can no longer afford it. In November, Nottinghamshire county council proposed to scrap its £2.1m welfare scheme in April as part of a £151m cuts programme.

Local welfare schemes have proved controversial because most councils have refused to give out cash loans, which were available under the social fund, but have instead provided "in kind" support in the form of food vouchers, and referrals to food banks.

Many councils have set strict eligibility criteria – many exclude applicants who have received benefit sanctions, while others refuse to help low-paid working families – meaning that many applicants have been turned away.

A recent survey suggested the harsh criteria meant many councils had massively underspent their funds so far this year despite evidence of huge demand.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/03/government-stops-emergency-funds-low-income-families

Can I suggest that every low income family just shoots themselves and saves the Government the bother of trying to find all these ways to make their lives hell.

Can I tell why this is being done? It is being done because there is a small hard core group who find a new excuse to get money out of these schemes every other month. I have heard people boasting about being able to have a big blow out every couple of months by "just getting another crisis loan". They would fill out the forms to say they got robbed, flooded, had to go to hospital whatever. This included someone claiming for a new washing every so often which amazingly just as they paid off the old crisis loan broke and flooded again so they had to get another one.

Yes innocent people are going to suffer - but if you have the same chancers doing the same rip off every other month you do get fed up of them.

sphinx wrote:Can I tell why this is being done?  It is being done because there is a small hard core group who find a new excuse to get money out of these schemes every other month.  I have heard people boasting about being able to have a big blow out every couple of months by "just getting another crisis loan".  They would fill out the forms to say they got robbed, flooded, had to go to hospital whatever. This included someone claiming for a new washing every so often which amazingly just as they paid off the old crisis loan broke and flooded again so they had to get another one.

Yes innocent people are going to suffer - but if you have the same chancers doing the same rip off every other month you do get fed up of them.

So, fix it. Why throw out the baby with the bath? Why, indeed? Methinks it's just another item on the list of the RW's war on the 99%.

No its not.

People had emergencies. A financial fund was set up to help. The fund was abused. The fund was closed.

The solution is likely to be what is already being put in place - if a person says the emergency has left them without food then actual food is provided. If home contents are destroyed actual necessary items are provided. Where I am there are several charities that provide training and employment by refurbishing household goods for those on low incomes. If a person has genuinely lost their food then there is no complaint when actual food is provided instead of cash. If a person has genuine need for household items then they are grateful to have working household items provided.

The only complaints about being unable to get actual cash will be coming from those who value cash above what they claim to need.

sphinx wrote:No its not.

People had emergencies.  A financial fund was set up to help.  The fund was abused.  The fund was closed.

The solution is likely to be what is already being put in place - if a person says the emergency has left them without food then actual food is provided.  If home contents are destroyed actual necessary items are provided.  Where I am there are several charities that provide training and employment by refurbishing household goods for those on low incomes.  If a person has genuinely lost their food then there is no complaint when actual food is provided instead of cash.  If a person has genuine need for household items then they are grateful to have working household items provided.  

The only complaints about being unable to get actual cash will be coming from those who value cash above what they claim to need.

Hi sphinx,

So, in other words you didn't believe in it in the first place.  I thought as much.

You should just say that, and not go through all this rubbish about how it's their own fault.  It doesn't mean you win, it just means you come clean. I don't believe your argument until I see the actual evidence. But at least the lines are defined.

Cheers.

sphinx wrote:No its not.

People had emergencies.  A financial fund was set up to help.  The fund was abused.  The fund was closed.

The solution is likely to be what is already being put in place - if a person says the emergency has left them without food then actual food is provided.  If home contents are destroyed actual necessary items are provided.  Where I am there are several charities that provide training and employment by refurbishing household goods for those on low incomes.  If a person has genuinely lost their food then there is no complaint when actual food is provided instead of cash.  If a person has genuine need for household items then they are grateful to have working household items provided.  

The only complaints about being unable to get actual cash will be coming from those who value cash above what they claim to need.

For god's sake Sphinx, you have just shown you know nothing about the things that are investigated before the emergency fund is hand over, or what is happening to it. The whole point is, what you have just stated is not going to happen, and has not been happening already for quite a few families with real difficulties, through no fault of their own. Women who have suffered domestic abuse etc.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:No its not.

People had emergencies.  A financial fund was set up to help.  The fund was abused.  The fund was closed.

The solution is likely to be what is already being put in place - if a person says the emergency has left them without food then actual food is provided.  If home contents are destroyed actual necessary items are provided.  Where I am there are several charities that provide training and employment by refurbishing household goods for those on low incomes.  If a person has genuinely lost their food then there is no complaint when actual food is provided instead of cash.  If a person has genuine need for household items then they are grateful to have working household items provided.  

The only complaints about being unable to get actual cash will be coming from those who value cash above what they claim to need.

Hi sphinx,

So, in other words you didn't believe in it in the first place.  I thought as much.

You should just say that, and not go through all this rubbish about how it's their own fault.  It doesn't mean you win, it just means you come clean.  I don't believe your argument until I see the actual evidence.  But at least the lines are defined.

Cheers.

Its got nothing to do with what I believe - I am neither the government not the civil servants who make these decisions. I am simply giving you the reasoning.

It is not "their own fault" unless you using "their" to refer to the people who abused the system to get large chunks of cash and not to the people with genuine emergencies - and if you are referring to the people abusing the system then not only is it their fault but they deserve the result.

As I live among people who are directly affected by these decisions I can only tell you what I observe. I observe some who lie about emergencies to get cash - they are pissed off at the way things are going. I have observed genuine emergencies - they have the opinion that so long as they get the food/clothing/household items they need they dont give a toss whether they are given cash to get them themselves or given the actual items.

Or to reduce it to something people can relate to on a one to one basis when you see someone begging "hungry and homeless" do you give them cash or buy them a meal?

Perhaps you would like to read WHY the fund is being cut, a political decision and nowt to do with the people using it. There have also been very, very, very strict conditions in place for its use for well over a year now, to the extent that the council have not been able to give funds to the people they know needed it, because of the regulations.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:No its not.

People had emergencies.  A financial fund was set up to help.  The fund was abused.  The fund was closed.

The solution is likely to be what is already being put in place - if a person says the emergency has left them without food then actual food is provided.  If home contents are destroyed actual necessary items are provided.  Where I am there are several charities that provide training and employment by refurbishing household goods for those on low incomes.  If a person has genuinely lost their food then there is no complaint when actual food is provided instead of cash.  If a person has genuine need for household items then they are grateful to have working household items provided.  

The only complaints about being unable to get actual cash will be coming from those who value cash above what they claim to need.

For god's sake Sphinx, you have just shown you know nothing about the things that are investigated before the emergency fund is hand over, or what is happening to it.   The whole point is, what you have just stated is not going to happen, and has not been happening already for quite a few families with real difficulties, through no fault of their own.   Women who have suffered domestic abuse etc.

I might not know anything about the actual investigation before funds are handed over but I do know funds have been repeatedly handed over to people not experiencing any emergency because I have watched it happen ( I mean I suppose its possible that the people concerned had secretly won the lottery and were providing their occasional cash boosts from their own pockets while telling everyone they had got another crisis loan but I actually think that unlikely)

As for the genuine emergencies I say again what difference does it make if the people get what they need or the money to buy what they need.

proof please

And the point is people are not going to get what they need, the crisis payment covers the things that are bought for them and given.

When you say proof you presumably mean evidence but hey.

As I repeatedly state these are my own direct observations and experiences. You may decide if I am either lying, seeing an atypical area, or actually being as accurate as I can be (hint like most people on benefits or low income I have no respect for people who are not trying to tell me what my life is like and how the systems I am involved with work)

Here is reality. Single mother 2 children has a pipe burst in her bathroom ruining cooker and food in the kitchen below. She phones benefits helpline (luckily she has a phone that has free numbers on it) and it is worked out she is entitled to £120 for cooker and £30 for food to get her to next due payday. To get the money she has to get to the benefits office which is a £6 return bus fare away (if she gets someone to sit the children and goes on her own). The place that does the cookers for low income is a further £6 bus fare away with no direct route to her home. There are cookers for £115 plus £5 delivery. She has had to find £12 transport to get the crisis loan and use it to buy the cooker. It would actually be far easier for the money to have been used to buy things for her and she would not have minded a bit.

Yep, and now she wouldn't be getting it.

Sassy wrote:Yep, and now she wouldn't be getting it.

No now she would not be getting the money.

She wouldn't be getting anything.   If the emergency fund doesn't exist, the council can't buy the goods.   That's what they buy the good with. Whether they give you the money to buy it yourself, or they buy it for you, that is the source of the money.

sphinx wrote:When you say proof you presumably mean evidence but hey.

As I repeatedly state these are my own direct observations and experiences.  You may decide if I am either lying,  seeing an atypical area, or actually being as accurate as I can be (hint like most people on benefits or low income I have no respect for people who are not trying to tell me what my life is like and how the systems I am involved with work)

Proof is something a little bit more stringent than that. Narrative evidence only proves the singular fact. You can't generalize from specifics, which is what you are trying to do, sphinx.

Sassy wrote:She wouldn't be getting anything.   If the emergency fund doesn't exist, the council can't buy the goods.   That's what they buy the good with.   Whether they give you the money to buy it yourself, or they buy it for you, that is the source of the money.

No that is presently the source of money.

At the moment Central government pay living benefits and local government pay housing costs. Under universal credit central government will be paying both living benefits and housing costs because it will be one payment.

So with local government paying housing costs central government covered crisis payments - with the change crisis payments have been slowly transferred to local government - to start with money came from central government but application was changed to local government then as the UC comes in not only will application be through local government but money will come from local government, money that will be available because they will no longer be funding housing costs.

The reason it makes more sense for crisis payments to be done at local government level is local knowledge and bargaining. For example anytown has a flood - people in this street are affected and some need crisis loans, people in that street are not affected so would not need crisis loans for that reason. If applications go central the human element does not know anytown so all any town applications are seen as genuine - at local level the human element knows the area and when an application from that street is made they automatically look more closely at it. Or any county council has commissioned a build of new fully fitted units to provide for care leavers or independent living tenants - they need a bulk order of cookers - the increase this bulk order by 10% reducing individual unit cost further and meaning that crisis applications for cooker can be awarded at a lower cost.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:When you say proof you presumably mean evidence but hey.

As I repeatedly state these are my own direct observations and experiences.  You may decide if I am either lying,  seeing an atypical area, or actually being as accurate as I can be (hint like most people on benefits or low income I have no respect for people who are not trying to tell me what my life is like and how the systems I am involved with work)

Proof is something a little bit more stringent than that.  Narrative evidence only proves the singular fact.  You can't generalize from specifics, which is what you are trying to do, sphinx.  

Others are happy to generalize - they are happy to tell me that such and such a think tank has shown that this number of people are going to experience this because of this but the think tanks do not actually include any of the people they think are going to experience what they think is going to happen - but their findings are considered more reliable than the voices of people they are talking about.

As I keep saying the things this and other threads are debating in theory are practice for me. Not just here but all over the place I have experts showing me evidence that "proves" I cannot possibly be managing an acceptable quality of life and totally ignoring the fact that I and thousands like me do exactly what they say is impossible.

Good - if I desperately needed money (if i'd spent too much) I can't go to the council for some.

Same if I want an extra bedroom, bigger house, cheaper tickets to the swimming baths etc etc.

This is just another example in a long line of central govt cutting funding to local authorities.
Tories want dissent between councils and citizens, always did always will.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Proof is something a little bit more stringent than that.  Narrative evidence only proves the singular fact.  You can't generalize from specifics, which is what you are trying to do, sphinx.  

Others are happy to generalize - they are happy to tell me that such and such a think tank has shown that this number of people are going to experience this because of this but the think tanks do not actually include any of the people they think are going to experience what they think is going to happen - but their findings are considered more reliable than the voices of people they are talking about.

As I keep saying the things this and other threads are debating in theory are practice for me.  Not just here but all over the place I have experts showing me evidence that "proves" I cannot possibly be managing an acceptable quality of life and totally ignoring the fact that I and thousands like me do exactly what they say is impossible.  

Whether think tanks, or polar bears. The difference is in the method. If you want to prove a single incident, you can introduce narrative or anachodotal evidence; if you want to generalize, you need numbers.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Others are happy to generalize - they are happy to tell me that such and such a think tank has shown that this number of people are going to experience this because of this but the think tanks do not actually include any of the people they think are going to experience what they think is going to happen - but their findings are considered more reliable than the voices of people they are talking about.

As I keep saying the things this and other threads are debating in theory are practice for me.  Not just here but all over the place I have experts showing me evidence that "proves" I cannot possibly be managing an acceptable quality of life and totally ignoring the fact that I and thousands like me do exactly what they say is impossible.  

Whether think tanks, or polar bears.  The difference is in the method.  If you want to prove a single incident, you can introduce narrative or anachodotal evidence; if you want to generalize, you need numbers.

Even when those numbers are taken from what is believed to be going to happen not what is actually happening.

Every day I will run across the "large numbers of  benefits claimants are scroungers" argument with numerical evidence to prove it and "all benefits claimants are victims" argument with numerical evidence.  The problem is in both cases although I am in the group that the evidence is supposed to be talking about the evidence has no basis in my reality.  People can (and do) prove numerically that I am a lying scrounger who could and should be working and different people can (and do) prove numerically that I am a helpless victim who is being driven into awful poverty - I cannot prove I am neither I can only give my narrative.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Whether think tanks, or polar bears.  The difference is in the method.  If you want to prove a single incident, you can introduce narrative or anachodotal evidence; if you want to generalize, you need numbers.

Even when those numbers are taken from what is believed to be going to happen not what is actually happening.

Every day I will run across the "large numbers of  benefits claimants are scroungers" argument with numerical evidence to prove it and "all benefits claimants are victims" argument with numerical evidence.  The problem is in both cases although I am in the group that the evidence is supposed to be talking about the evidence has no basis in my reality.  People can (and do) prove numerically that I am a lying scrounger who could and should be working and different people can (and do) prove numerically that I am a helpless victim who is being driven into awful poverty - I cannot prove I am neither I can only give my narrative.

You can always argue data veracity. But not data validity.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Even when those numbers are taken from what is believed to be going to happen not what is actually happening.

Every day I will run across the "large numbers of  benefits claimants are scroungers" argument with numerical evidence to prove it and "all benefits claimants are victims" argument with numerical evidence.  The problem is in both cases although I am in the group that the evidence is supposed to be talking about the evidence has no basis in my reality.  People can (and do) prove numerically that I am a lying scrounger who could and should be working and different people can (and do) prove numerically that I am a helpless victim who is being driven into awful poverty - I cannot prove I am neither I can only give my narrative.

You can always argue data veracity.  But not data validity.

Would you agree that validity is pointless without veracity?

It is all very well saying figures show this thing is happening this number of times to this number of people but unless you actually talk to the people you do not know anything useful.

To be honest, people who pay taxes are just utterly fed up with those who are not careful with money, that's why they voted Conservative and well done to the Conservatives for sorting this out.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can always argue data veracity.  But not data validity.

Would you agree that validity is pointless without veracity?

It is all very well saying figures show this thing is happening this number of times to this number of people but unless you actually talk to the people you do not know anything useful.

I think you are getting totally away from the point Sphinx. You might be able to prove that a few people were successful at playing the system, but it will only be a few, because the checks were extremely vigorous.

That's not the point. The point is, people in real difficulty, like a woman who has had to run because her husband has beaten her up, or and old couple who have had their house burgled and trashed, or a fire, or someone who has an 'Act of God' like a flood etc, will no longer get any help.

Are you happy with that? Do you think that is acceptable.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Would you agree that validity is pointless without veracity?

It is all very well saying figures show this thing is happening this number of times to this number of people but unless you actually talk to the people you do not know anything useful.

I think you are getting totally away from the point Sphinx.   You might be able to prove that a few people were successful at playing the system, but it will only be a few, because the checks were extremely vigorous.

That's not the point.   The point is, people in real difficulty, like a woman who has had to run because her husband has beaten her up, or and old couple who have had their house burgled and trashed, or a fire, or someone who has an 'Act of God' like a flood etc, will no longer get any help.  

Are you happy with that?  Do you think that is acceptable.

What the feck are you on about - that is up to their insurance you clown.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I think you are getting totally away from the point Sphinx.   You might be able to prove that a few people were successful at playing the system, but it will only be a few, because the checks were extremely vigorous.

That's not the point.   The point is, people in real difficulty, like a woman who has had to run because her husband has beaten her up, or and old couple who have had their house burgled and trashed, or a fire, or someone who has an 'Act of God' like a flood etc, will no longer get any help.  

Are you happy with that?  Do you think that is acceptable.

What the feck are you on about - that is up to their insurance you clown.

People who are really poor can't afford insurance.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Would you agree that validity is pointless without veracity?

It is all very well saying figures show this thing is happening this number of times to this number of people but unless you actually talk to the people you do not know anything useful.

I think you are getting totally away from the point Sphinx.   You might be able to prove that a few people were successful at playing the system, but it will only be a few, because the checks were extremely vigorous.

That's not the point.   The point is, people in real difficulty, like a woman who has had to run because her husband has beaten her up, or and old couple who have had their house burgled and trashed, or a fire, or someone who has an 'Act of God' like a flood etc, will no longer get any help.  

Are you happy with that?  Do you think that is acceptable.

No I dont accept that - what the story says is funding will no longer come from central government not that it will not be provided. As I have explained with UC funding for housing costs is moving from local authority provision to central government provision which means the local authorities will have all the money they used to spend on housing costs to balance the money no longer being provided from central government for crisis. They will be perfectly able to continue to fund the present system if they wish or replace it with their own system to conclude there will be no help is not justified.

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

What the feck are you on about - that is up to their insurance you clown.

People who are really poor can't afford insurance.

Again with "the really poor" statement with no-one able or willing to actually define what really poor means.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

People who are really poor can't afford insurance.

Again with "the really poor" statement with no-one able or willing to actually define what really poor means.

Well whatever - the end result is that the normal hard working taxpayer has to pay for them, for everything!

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I think you are getting totally away from the point Sphinx.   You might be able to prove that a few people were successful at playing the system, but it will only be a few, because the checks were extremely vigorous.

That's not the point.   The point is, people in real difficulty, like a woman who has had to run because her husband has beaten her up, or and old couple who have had their house burgled and trashed, or a fire, or someone who has an 'Act of God' like a flood etc, will no longer get any help.  

Are you happy with that?  Do you think that is acceptable.

No I dont accept that - what the story says is funding will no longer come from central government not that it will not be provided.  As I have explained with UC funding for housing costs is moving from local authority provision to central government provision which means the local authorities will have all the money they used to spend on housing costs to balance the money no longer being provided from central government for crisis.  They will be perfectly able to continue to fund the present system if they wish or replace it with their own system to conclude there will be no help is not justified.

Technical documents released just before Christmas suggest the Department for Work and Pensions plans to cut its cash allocation to local authority welfare assistance schemes in 15 months' time.

Where the hell do you think the Councils get the money from - thin air? They don't have the funds, christ of a bike, they have even had to shut old people's homes etc because they don't have the funds.

Although it is the only tax which is set by local government in Great Britain, the Council Tax ostensibly contributes only a small proportion (25%, on average) of local government revenue. The majority ostensibly comes from central government funding, either as grants, or in the form of business rates which are collected centrally and redistributed to local authorities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again with "the really poor" statement with no-one able or willing to actually define what really poor means.

Well whatever - the end result is that the normal hard working taxpayer has to pay for them, for everything!

Remember that "them" includes mostly former hard working taxpayers who paid not only tax but NI on the understanding that if things went wrong there would be a safety net.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Well whatever - the end result is that the normal hard working taxpayer has to pay for them, for everything!

Remember that "them" includes mostly former hard working taxpayers who paid not only tax but NI on the understanding that if things went wrong there would be a safety net.

Now, that's how it should work - let's start keeping records and associate how much you get to how much you paid in.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Remember that "them" includes mostly former hard working taxpayers who paid not only tax but NI on the understanding that if things went wrong there would be a safety net.

Now, that's how it should work - let's start keeping records and associate how much you get to how much you paid in.

They already did that.

There was always contribution based benefits...and then income related ones.

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Now, that's how it should work - let's start keeping records and associate how much you get to how much you paid in.

They already did that.

There was always contribution based benefits...and then income related ones.

So if you don't work all your life you won't get a pension?

Will you be turned down at the doctors, the hospital?

Nah, I don't think so.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Catman wrote:

They already did that.

There was always contribution based benefits...and then income related ones.

So if you don't work all your life you won't get a pension?

Will you be turned down at the doctors, the hospital?

Nah, I don't think so.

No state pension in the future end of.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can always argue data veracity.  But not data validity.

Would you agree that validity is pointless without veracity?
.

No, validity is logic. Veracity is truth. The question frames the logic. Until you get that straight, you don't know what you are looking for.

That's why you can't do generalizations without quantitative analysis. The question begs a quantitative approach.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Remember that "them" includes mostly former hard working taxpayers who paid not only tax but NI on the understanding that if things went wrong there would be a safety net.

Now, that's how it should work - let's start keeping records and associate how much you get to how much you paid in.

Then what about those who are disabled from birth and so are unable to pay in? Or the relatives that care for these people?

I mean we already have a system that checks - people who become unemployed after sufficient NI contributions get a different benefit from those who have not. The issue is with people who have not worked - not all of the them are screwing the system not all of them by a long long way.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Would you agree that validity is pointless without veracity?
.

No, validity is logic.  Veracity is truth.  The question frames the logic.  Until you get that straight, you don't know what you are looking for.

That's why you can't do generalizations without quantitative analysis.  The question begs a quantitative approach.

Thats bought my cynical laugh out.

Life is not logical. Trying to apply logic to life generally results in disasters. The truth can be and often is counter intuitive (take the NMW resulting in a larger difference between the top paid and bottom paid)

Honestly everyone would be far better off if the powers that be stopped trying to apply logic and started working with the truth.

On the basis of "a few abused the system so it was closed" thus punishing the majority for the actions of a tiny minority, we could apply the same logic to all manner of things...lets see

pubs, a few drunken louts spoil a town/village center...close all pubs in the area....and YES it is the same thing.
football, a few hooligans kick of...shut down the clubs, all of them
a radio staion/tv station broadcasts something "unacceptable"...close em all down...

It always amazes me how the rabid right ALWAYS "know" someone on the fiddle, begs the question of their associates doesnt it?

Except the system has not been closed it has been changed to try and reduce the possibility of abuse.
As I have already stated the loss of central funding timeline matches the timeline of central funding increasing in other areas.

Still it makes a good story for claiming horrible abuse even proof from actual real people as opposed to fictional composites is thin on the ground.

sphinx wrote:Except the system has not been closed it has been changed to try and reduce the possibility of abuse.
As I have already stated the loss of central funding timeline matches the timeline of central funding increasing in other areas.

Still it makes a good story for claiming horrible abuse even proof from actual real people as opposed to fictional composites is thin on the ground.

Can you define the changes and how they will work?

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Except the system has not been closed it has been changed to try and reduce the possibility of abuse.
As I have already stated the loss of central funding timeline matches the timeline of central funding increasing in other areas.

Still it makes a good story for claiming horrible abuse even proof from actual real people as opposed to fictional composites is thin on the ground.

Can you define the changes and how they will work?

The crisis fund application process was switched from benefit office of central government to local councils of local government while funding continued to be supplied from central sources.

UC began its introduction meaning funding for housing costs starts coming from central government not local government

Government announces end of guaranteed central funding for crisis fund.

Thus as each local council pays less towards housing costs because those are being met from central funding said council is required to provide more funding for the crisis fund.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Can you define the changes and how they will work?

The crisis fund application process was switched from benefit office of central government to local councils of local government while funding continued to be supplied from central sources.

UC began its introduction meaning funding for housing costs starts coming from central government not local government

Government announces end of guaranteed central funding for crisis fund.

Thus as each local council pays less towards housing costs because those are being met from central funding said council is required to provide more funding for the crisis fund.

So it has been stopped but your trying to say that it hasn't and it's just been changed on the basis that councils will pay less towards housing costs being met by central government elsewhere.

It's been stopped and what you say is just your way of trying to say it's just been changed which is nonsense.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The crisis fund application process was switched from benefit office of central government to local councils of local government while funding continued to be supplied from central sources.

UC began its introduction meaning funding for housing costs starts coming from central government not local government

Government announces end of guaranteed central funding for crisis fund.

Thus as each local council pays less towards housing costs because those are being met from central funding said council is required to provide more funding for the crisis fund.

So it has been stopped but your trying to say that it hasn't and it's just been changed on the basis that councils will pay less towards housing costs being met by central government elsewhere.

It's been stopped and what you say is just your way of trying to say it's just been changed which is nonsense.

Uh the funding is being changed it is not stopping. I mean if you want we can do a story on how local councils are stopping funding for housing benefit and LHA so this means all those claiming these benefits are going to be left homeless if you want - it will be just as accurate.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So it has been stopped but your trying to say that it hasn't and it's just been changed on the basis that councils will pay less towards housing costs being met by central government elsewhere.

It's been stopped and what you say is just your way of trying to say it's just been changed which is nonsense.

Uh the funding is being changed it is not stopping.  I mean if you want we can do a story on how local councils are stopping funding for housing benefit and LHA so this means all those claiming these benefits are going to be left homeless if you want - it will be just as accurate.

Never mind the deflection and just accept the fact that the Government has announced the end of the guaranteed central funding for a crisis and that your attempt to connect two separate events to suggest that it has just been changed is utterly wrong and a load of nonsense.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Uh the funding is being changed it is not stopping.  I mean if you want we can do a story on how local councils are stopping funding for housing benefit and LHA so this means all those claiming these benefits are going to be left homeless if you want - it will be just as accurate.

Never mind the deflection and just accept the fact that the Government has announced the end of the guaranteed central funding for a crisis and that your attempt to connect two separate events to suggest that it has just been changed is utterly wrong and a load of nonsense.

I will accept the stopping of guaranteed central funding and also that local authorities are stopping funding to pay rents - I will panic and object to one the same way I do to the other.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, validity is logic.  Veracity is truth.  The question frames the logic.  Until you get that straight, you don't know what you are looking for.

That's why you can't do generalizations without quantitative analysis.  The question begs a quantitative approach.

Thats bought my cynical laugh out.

Life is not logical.  Trying to apply logic to life generally results in disasters.  The truth can be and often is counter intuitive (take the NMW resulting in a larger difference between the top paid and bottom paid)

Honestly everyone would be far better off if the powers that be stopped trying to apply logic and started working with the truth.

It's more logical than you think, sphinx. Just that you miss the logic because you are looking elsewhere, for something else.

sphinx wrote:Thus as each local council pays less towards housing costs because those are being met from central funding said council is required to provide more funding for the crisis fund.

Interesting, sphinx. What steps are being taken by local councils to pick up the functions of crisis funding formerly handled by the central government. Don't you have to begin with a fund?

No I dont miss the logic - I just compare what the logic says should be happening with the truth of what actually is happening and find that it is very very rare the 2 are remotely similar.

I mean logic said that if the UK put all its criminals on the other side of the world then they would have less criminals and the other side of the world would be a degenerate cess pit of criminality. Any opinions on the veracity of that?

As for the local councils have you missed the bit I put about rent? Local authorities will no longer be responsible for paying housing benefit/LHA so all the money they have previously paid for rent can be used to pay for crisises.